Donald Trump’s first criminal trial is officially on the books—and it starts before the election.
GOP front-runner Donald Trump is officially headed to court next month—the first of his four upcoming criminal trials expected sometime this year.
On Thursday, Trump headed to New York for a court hearing on his hush-money case. Judge Juan Manuel Merchan ignored his requests for a delay and determined the trial would start on March 25, when jury selection will begin.
Trump is accused of using his former fixer Michael Cohen to sweep an affair with porn actress Stormy Daniels under the rug ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
As a result, he’s facing 34 felony charges in this case for allegedly falsifying business records with the intent to further an underlying crime. Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts.
Also
Will then maybe your client shouldn’t have committed so many crimes…
Maybe the RNC needs to pony up more cash for legal costs. Spend everything keeping that motherfucker out of prison. Mortgage everything at the altar of Trump.
Stop, stop! I can only get so moist!
Sploosh!
That’s how Trump gets the ladies all horny, by repeatedly hitting himself and his rabid army in public.
I need to buy popcorn.
He was trying for three Stooges syndrome, but for crime.
“You mean I’m indestructible?”
“No, not at all. Even a slight breeze could-”
“…Indestructible.”
I just picture Jim Carey in liar liar “Stop breaking the law asshole!”
Even Trump is innocent until proven guilty.
He’s presumed innocent by the legal system. Those of us not involved in the cases against him have no obligation to pretend we don’t see his obvious guilt.
And he has already been inducted, which means he’s obligated to stand trial regardless of his guilt or innocence.
You don’t seem to get the point of presuming innocence. It is a guardrail against vigilantism. When people start making up their own minds about “obvious” guilt, it’s only a tiny step to dole out “righteous“ punishment, which, of course, it never is.
Basic rights are for everyone, not just those on your own political team.
By the way, you do have the obligation to not “see his obvious guilt”. For instance, you cannot call someone a rapist just because you feel like it. That would be slander.
Nah, fuck that. My opinions are not subject to legal restraints.
And it’s not about preventing vigilantism at all. It’s about preventing people from being wrongfully convicted. The thing that prevents vigilantism is that vigilantism involves commiting crimes.
No one has a right to my presumption of innocence. I’m not obligated to let my daughters hang out with OJ or anyone on the Pedo Island list. Fuck those people. Maybe they deserve to be in prison and maybe they don’t. And maybe the justice system will get it right, but even if they were found not guilty in court that doesn’t mean they are innocent or that I’m obligated to treat them that way.
They have rights as far as the government impugning their freedom goes, and they have a right to me not depriving them off life or liberty, but I owe them nothing least of all my trust or loyalty.
What if someone is convicted for slandering someone they raped, but not actually convicted of rape?
We watched him instigate a goddamn coup on live television. There were hundreds of millions of witnesses. Trump’s innocence is not the question here…the extent of corruption of the system is what’s really on trial.
Before the beloved 2nd amendment, is the first. Courts are bound by the presumption of Innocence for the good reasons you were told already.
But your argument falls flat right at free speech; This is still fucking America, and no one is bound to believing or saying whatever another thinks by force of the government.
As always, the boundary is the consequences of your own actions (words) when taken by another.
Also, that’s not how slander works you rapist of the time spent reading your drivel. Prove those damages to your reputation.
That’s just not true. The presumption of innocence merely frames the roles of court participants - the prosecution must produce sufficient evidence to prove the defendant is fully beyond reasonable doubt.
Vigilantes are going to judge the accused regardless.
Additionally, if a legal system I’d unable or unwilling to try a case then IMO the public can form their own conclusions. Perhaps one day Trump will face judgement, but it’s undeniable that he’s received special treatment during these proceedings.
Slander isn’t a crime, it’s a civil issue. Nor is calling someone a rapist slander if they are an actual rapist. The people who witnessed Brock Turner don’t need to wait for a criminal trial to conclude to determine he is a rapist. The people who witnessed Donald’s endless string of pathological lies and fraud don’t need to wait for a trial to determine he is a fucking crook.
That’s a hilariously ironic example you gave, considering Trump is a rapist, although I do agree with you in general.
Nah, we all saw him do the shit.
“allegedly”
Better?